Well watching the Truss coverage and the punditry I do get the impression of an almost completely new government staking out a pretty stupid and possibly ruinous new direction.
Yet with no general election, little support amongst MPs, no mandate at all really other than from the tiny demographic of members of the Conservative Party, and not even there since they'd still prefer Boris Johnson.
Feels wrong. Doesn't feel like a democracy in working order.
If Parliament passes the laws and budgets the Government proposes then it is absolutely democracy as it has run for the last couple of centuries. I may not like Truss (I really don't) but that is the system.
Actually I do think we should return to an earlier Parliamentary system that existed prior to 1926 when an MP who was not already a minister had to stand for re-election if appointed to Government outside of the immediate aftermath of a GE. .
It's within the rules, yes, but that doesn't mean it can't feel lacking in democratic terms. Us in the EU was in the rules too, but still there was much talk of a "democratic deficit" wasn't there?
Or a different example. Starmer wins in 24 on a moderate ticket then implements Corbyn's 2019 manifesto. Within the rules. Not outside the system. But democratic? Hmm.
If you don't want a Corbynite government, don't vote Labour.
A lesson for the Tory 2019 vote to ponder perhaps.
Absolutely, it cuts both ways. You can vote Cameron and get ultimately Boris, you can vote Blair and get Brown.
I meant vote Boris get the IEA. The equivalent is vote Blair get Corbyn.
That's Parliamentary democracy. We don't elect a President.
Indeed. But I don't think this is the administration the country wanted. You may differ. It's 1993 again.
It may not be the administration the country wanted, its the administration the country has.
If you wanted it to stick with the administration the country wanted, then Boris should have stayed, but enough was enough.
Shes only got 10% on Labour (50 to 40). It was within 1% in 2017. Boundary changes it gets Thorpe Hamlet ward from Norwich South (strongly Labour) and about 1000 from Crome ward in Norwich South (Labour held) Its going red
JRM as business secretary. Is she having a laugh at the nation's expense or something?
If we're lucky, yes.
If we're unlucky, this is all for real.
Is there any evidence that Truss does jokes? Remember that she's fundamentally a maths student, and maths jokes don't get better than
Why is six afraid of seven? Because seven eight nine.
What does that mean, she's "fundamentally a maths student"? That her father is a (now emeritus) maths professor? She doesn't seem to be a daddy's girl at all. That she's interested in maths education? Why shouldn't she be?
Maths jokes get a lot better than that.
Q. What's an anagram of Banach-Tarski? A. Banach-Tarski Banach-Tarski.
Q. Why does the mathematician call his dog Cauchy? A. Because it leaves a residue at every pole.
OT. Plans have been submitted to Lincs County Council to put three solar farms in North Lincolnshire covering 10,000 acres of farmland. It does seem a hell of a lot of farmland to take out of production.
It is apparently 0.3% of the total farmed area in the East Midlands (from back-of-the-envelope math), so maybe? On the other hand: is this good productive farmland, or low-quality lousy farmland? And we do seem to currently be rather badly short of energy and not so obviously short of food -- plus it's a lot easier to import wheat and potatoes if we need to than it is energy...
Lol at Big G welcoming these appointments. He must be the owner of some fine bridges.
If I have to be generous, I’d say that downright comedy appointments are restricted to Rees-Mogg, Braverman and Cleverly.
Mordaunt’s political talents are wasted, so too by the looks of it are Kemi’s.
It will be interesting to see how Kwasi and Coffey perform. Kwasi was a dud in BEIS, but perhaps he was stifled trying to make sense of Johnson-ism. Coffey seemed quietly competent in Work and Pensions. Health is a much bigger challenge.
This works for Badenoch, much as it worked for Truss. Attached to good news stories of Trade Missions and Deals, cast iron excuse to be out of the way if bad news hits.
For the rest of them, the simplest explanation is Truss saying "We've got two years, so I'll give my mates nice jobs they can dine out on forever. If it goes wrong, we're out for a decade anyway."
There is a theory amongst Leicester City fans that Brendan Rodgers is deliberately sabotaging the club by bizarre team selection, inept substitutions, freezing out the competent, and slagging off the team, owners and fans.
I can't help but wonder if Truss is doing the same.
Rodgers gets a massive payoff if sacked, but what is in it for Truss? To destroy big government and the welfare state irrevocably?
It's not the vote of the majority of PB posters that LT is after but voters like me - Boris fans - so further to the right she goes the better as far as I'm concerned - first impressions are good but will wait for more details especially with regard to illegal immigration
Well she needs to learn how to count. There's a dozen 2019 and previous Tories here who have said they wouldn't vote for Boris again, vs Boris fans you and HYUFD. HYUFD is sui generis and you seem confused if you think Boris was far right, so she'd do better trying to win the dozen back.
This forum is not representative of tory voters - how many Labour supporters on here voted leave?
This forum is definitely not representative of Tory voters, but for the Tories to win they need much, much more than just die-hard Tory loyalists.
exactly - former Labour voters like myself who voted for Boris you need to keep - it's the how bit that's the Tory's problem
Sort of. See 2015. Kill off the LibDem challenge in the south and on the new boundaries they don’t need much Red Wall for a working majority.
mmmm - hadn't thought of that - my vote and others similar to my view might not be as important as I think they will be
JRM as business secretary. Is she having a laugh at the nation's expense or something?
If we're lucky, yes.
If we're unlucky, this is all for real.
Is there any evidence that Truss does jokes? Remember that she's fundamentally a maths student, and maths jokes don't get better than
Why is six afraid of seven? Because seven eight nine.
What does that mean, she's "fundamentally a maths student"? That her father is a (now emeritus) maths professor? She doesn't seem to be a daddy's girl at all. That she's interested in maths education? Why shouldn't she be?
Maths jokes get a lot better than that.
Q. What's an anagram of Banach-Tarski? A. Banach-Tarski Banach-Tarski.
Q. Why does the mathematician call his dog Cauchy? A. Because it leaves a residue at every pole.
A Levels in Maths and Further Maths. And this little vignette from Tim Harford;
Back in 1994/95, I studied mathematical logic with Liz Truss. Just the two of us + the prof. Cantor's infinities. Peano arithmetic. Turing machines. All the good stuff. I wonder if it will help her with the job? Let's hope so.
Nothing wrong with that. I've got A Levels in Maths, FM and Physics, and a degree in a really niche bit of Earth Science which means I'm not trusted with a geological hammer. But people who excel in those subjects see the world in a distinctive way. One where The Big Bang Theory was a documentary.
Well watching the Truss coverage and the punditry I do get the impression of an almost completely new government staking out a pretty stupid and possibly ruinous new direction.
Yet with no general election, little support amongst MPs, no mandate at all really other than from the tiny demographic of members of the Conservative Party, and not even there since they'd still prefer Boris Johnson.
Feels wrong. Doesn't feel like a democracy in working order.
If Parliament passes the laws and budgets the Government proposes then it is absolutely democracy as it has run for the last couple of centuries. I may not like Truss (I really don't) but that is the system.
Actually I do think we should return to an earlier Parliamentary system that existed prior to 1926 when an MP who was not already a minister had to stand for re-election if appointed to Government outside of the immediate aftermath of a GE. .
It's within the rules, yes, but that doesn't mean it can't feel lacking in democratic terms. Us in the EU was in the rules too, but still there was much talk of a "democratic deficit" wasn't there?
Or a different example. Starmer wins in 24 on a moderate ticket then implements Corbyn's 2019 manifesto. Within the rules. Not outside the system. But democratic? Hmm.
If you don't want a Corbynite government, don't vote Labour.
A lesson for the Tory 2019 vote to ponder perhaps.
Absolutely, it cuts both ways. You can vote Cameron and get ultimately Boris, you can vote Blair and get Brown.
I meant vote Boris get the IEA. The equivalent is vote Blair get Corbyn.
That's Parliamentary democracy. We don't elect a President.
Indeed. But I don't think this is the administration the country wanted. You may differ. It's 1993 again.
It may not be the administration the country wanted, its the administration the country has.
If you wanted it to stick with the administration the country wanted, then Boris should have stayed, but enough was enough.
In which case you're headed for Opposition with ideological integrity intact.
Well watching the Truss coverage and the punditry I do get the impression of an almost completely new government staking out a pretty stupid and possibly ruinous new direction.
Yet with no general election, little support amongst MPs, no mandate at all really other than from the tiny demographic of members of the Conservative Party, and not even there since they'd still prefer Boris Johnson.
Feels wrong. Doesn't feel like a democracy in working order.
If Parliament passes the laws and budgets the Government proposes then it is absolutely democracy as it has run for the last couple of centuries. I may not like Truss (I really don't) but that is the system.
Actually I do think we should return to an earlier Parliamentary system that existed prior to 1926 when an MP who was not already a minister had to stand for re-election if appointed to Government outside of the immediate aftermath of a GE. .
It's within the rules, yes, but that doesn't mean it can't feel lacking in democratic terms. Us in the EU was in the rules too, but still there was much talk of a "democratic deficit" wasn't there?
Or a different example. Starmer wins in 24 on a moderate ticket then implements Corbyn's 2019 manifesto. Within the rules. Not outside the system. But democratic? Hmm.
If you don't want a Corbynite government, don't vote Labour.
A lesson for the Tory 2019 vote to ponder perhaps.
Absolutely, it cuts both ways. You can vote Cameron and get ultimately Boris, you can vote Blair and get Brown.
I meant vote Boris get the IEA. The equivalent is vote Blair get Corbyn.
That's Parliamentary democracy. We don't elect a President.
Indeed. But I don't think this is the administration the country wanted. You may differ. It's 1993 again.
It may not be the administration the country wanted, its the administration the country has.
If you wanted it to stick with the administration the country wanted, then Boris should have stayed, but enough was enough.
In which case you're headed for Opposition with ideological integrity intact.
I've said all along, I'd prefer that than the alternative. 👍
If you have to sell your soul to have your party in office, then office isn't worth it.
There is a theory amongst Leicester City fans that Brendan Rodgers is deliberately sabotaging the club by bizarre team selection, inept substitutions, freezing out the competent, and slagging off the team, owners and fans.
I can't help but wonder if Truss is doing the same.
Rodgers gets a massive payoff if sacked, but what is in it for Truss? To destroy big government and the welfare state irrevocably?
Nah, to destroy the Tory Party before she gets that far. Finally she does her LibDem masters’ bidding and can return home, mission complete, to tea and medals.
I'm doubling down on this theory. After two decades deep cover in the Tory party, seizing the opportunity to destroy what remaining credibility they have with the electorate. And ushering in a new Lib Dem golden age for the 2020's.
It's all very well citing a 7% jump in Labour support when Brown took over. But remember that Brown was then personally popular, so much so that Labour had effectively run the 2005 GE campaign on a nod and a wink that Brown would soon take over from the unpopular Blair. Yet Truss is anything but personally popular, so I don't view the parallel as a good one.
The better parallel is I think what happened to opinion polls in the week between Thatcher resigning and Major being confirmed as her successor. The polls moved not a jot further once the largely unknown Major had been confirmed as her successor. The polling boost to the Conservatives had occured before that, at the point of her resignation and shortly before it. Major was pretty well unknown at that point, other than being viewed as the continuity Thatcher candidate.
If the polls do now move in the Conservatives's direction, it will be down to palpable relief based on the rescue package from the energy price shock, and nothing to do with Truss per se.
Well watching the Truss coverage and the punditry I do get the impression of an almost completely new government staking out a pretty stupid and possibly ruinous new direction.
Yet with no general election, little support amongst MPs, no mandate at all really other than from the tiny demographic of members of the Conservative Party, and not even there since they'd still prefer Boris Johnson.
Feels wrong. Doesn't feel like a democracy in working order.
If Parliament passes the laws and budgets the Government proposes then it is absolutely democracy as it has run for the last couple of centuries. I may not like Truss (I really don't) but that is the system.
Actually I do think we should return to an earlier Parliamentary system that existed prior to 1926 when an MP who was not already a minister had to stand for re-election if appointed to Government outside of the immediate aftermath of a GE. .
It's within the rules, yes, but that doesn't mean it can't feel lacking in democratic terms. Us in the EU was in the rules too, but still there was much talk of a "democratic deficit" wasn't there?
Or a different example. Starmer wins in 24 on a moderate ticket then implements Corbyn's 2019 manifesto. Within the rules. Not outside the system. But democratic? Hmm.
If you don't want a Corbynite government, don't vote Labour.
A lesson for the Tory 2019 vote to ponder perhaps.
Absolutely, it cuts both ways. You can vote Cameron and get ultimately Boris, you can vote Blair and get Brown.
I meant vote Boris get the IEA. The equivalent is vote Blair get Corbyn.
That's Parliamentary democracy. We don't elect a President.
Indeed. But I don't think this is the administration the country wanted. You may differ. It's 1993 again.
No, it’s 1995. But Redwood won.
Talking of weird counterfactuals, perhaps that would have been better for the Tories in the long run. He couldn't have done worse in the 1997 election, and they could have skipped the Hague, IDS, Howard wilderness years and gone straight to someone electable after losing.
By the way, in other news, there are lots of indications that Russians are getting routed all over the place at the moment...
That would be most pleasant. Reports from weeks ago were that things would remain slow and grindy for many months, and that may well still be the case (we heard plenty about desertions early on in the way for instance, which did not seem to emerge), but Ukraine is due some positive news.
The Ukrainians may have played a blinder in the media in downplaying expectations. They even had this media blackout when the counteroffensive started which allowed Russian propaganda to spread all over the place and which is making what may be happening (quite rapidly it appears) now the blackout is being lifted even more shocking and surprising to Russian supporters.
There's lots of potential good news following around on twitter for Ukraine today. Sometimes this has happened in the past and it's turned out to be exaggerated. But there's quite a bit of different news from different places.
One of the more notable bits I saw was the claim that a destroyed Russian pontoon bridge had been taken out by a Ukrainian air force jet. The ability of the Ukrainians to project air power seems to be increasing at the same time as the Russians are using S-300 air defence missiles to attack civilian ground targets.
Russian military action appears to be becoming even more inept. Ukrainians taking the piss out of retreating Russian soldiers for abandoning their looted washing machines too.
They are using air defence missiles in a ground attack role? How?! I mean, in some ways that shows initiative if they are hitting anything they aim at…
They're firing them fairly indiscriminately at Kharkiv, they don't exactly have to be that accurate. It's a bizarre waste of valuable air defence assets at a time when Russian air defence has been damaged and they're becoming more vulnerable to Ukrainian TB2s and jets.
JRM as business secretary. Is she having a laugh at the nation's expense or something?
If we're lucky, yes.
If we're unlucky, this is all for real.
Is there any evidence that Truss does jokes? Remember that she's fundamentally a maths student, and maths jokes don't get better than
Why is six afraid of seven? Because seven eight nine.
What does that mean, she's "fundamentally a maths student"? That her father is a (now emeritus) maths professor? She doesn't seem to be a daddy's girl at all. That she's interested in maths education? Why shouldn't she be?
Maths jokes get a lot better than that.
Q. What's an anagram of Banach-Tarski? A. Banach-Tarski Banach-Tarski.
Q. Why does the mathematician call his dog Cauchy? A. Because it leaves a residue at every pole.
This promise on doctors and dentists looks a hostage to fortune. How do you magick them up?
I expect an exodus. Every week I hear another colleague giving notice.
This is feeble. I haven’t had a pay rise for my travel writing from the Knapper’s Gazette for 3 years. So effectively I’m taking a huge pay CUT when you factor into inflation?
But do I go on strike like the bloody barristers? Do I walk out the job like the feeble doctors?
NO I DO NOT
I carry on flying out to sun kissed countries to have delicious free meals, helicopter rides over waterfalls, and complimentary “four hand” Ayurvedic massage from nubile Laotian nymphs
AND I DON’T WHINGE
Sometimes you’ve just got to knuckle down, grit your teeth, and get through the next 5 star spa session, for the good of the country, not yourself
Well watching the Truss coverage and the punditry I do get the impression of an almost completely new government staking out a pretty stupid and possibly ruinous new direction.
Yet with no general election, little support amongst MPs, no mandate at all really other than from the tiny demographic of members of the Conservative Party, and not even there since they'd still prefer Boris Johnson.
Feels wrong. Doesn't feel like a democracy in working order.
If Parliament passes the laws and budgets the Government proposes then it is absolutely democracy as it has run for the last couple of centuries. I may not like Truss (I really don't) but that is the system.
Actually I do think we should return to an earlier Parliamentary system that existed prior to 1926 when an MP who was not already a minister had to stand for re-election if appointed to Government outside of the immediate aftermath of a GE. .
It's within the rules, yes, but that doesn't mean it can't feel lacking in democratic terms. Us in the EU was in the rules too, but still there was much talk of a "democratic deficit" wasn't there?
Or a different example. Starmer wins in 24 on a moderate ticket then implements Corbyn's 2019 manifesto. Within the rules. Not outside the system. But democratic? Hmm.
If you don't want a Corbynite government, don't vote Labour.
A lesson for the Tory 2019 vote to ponder perhaps.
Absolutely, it cuts both ways. You can vote Cameron and get ultimately Boris, you can vote Blair and get Brown.
I meant vote Boris get the IEA. The equivalent is vote Blair get Corbyn.
That's Parliamentary democracy. We don't elect a President.
Indeed. But I don't think this is the administration the country wanted. You may differ. It's 1993 again.
It may not be the administration the country wanted, its the administration the country has.
If you wanted it to stick with the administration the country wanted, then Boris should have stayed, but enough was enough.
In which case you're headed for Opposition with ideological integrity intact.
I've said all along, I'd prefer that than the alternative. 👍
If you have to sell your soul to have your party in office, then office isn't worth it.
Chapeau. It's rare to see an ideologue on here who'll admit to being one. Kudos.
Well watching the Truss coverage and the punditry I do get the impression of an almost completely new government staking out a pretty stupid and possibly ruinous new direction.
Yet with no general election, little support amongst MPs, no mandate at all really other than from the tiny demographic of members of the Conservative Party, and not even there since they'd still prefer Boris Johnson.
Feels wrong. Doesn't feel like a democracy in working order.
If Parliament passes the laws and budgets the Government proposes then it is absolutely democracy as it has run for the last couple of centuries. I may not like Truss (I really don't) but that is the system.
Actually I do think we should return to an earlier Parliamentary system that existed prior to 1926 when an MP who was not already a minister had to stand for re-election if appointed to Government outside of the immediate aftermath of a GE. .
It's within the rules, yes, but that doesn't mean it can't feel lacking in democratic terms. Us in the EU was in the rules too, but still there was much talk of a "democratic deficit" wasn't there?
Or a different example. Starmer wins in 24 on a moderate ticket then implements Corbyn's 2019 manifesto. Within the rules. Not outside the system. But democratic? Hmm.
If you don't want a Corbynite government, don't vote Labour.
A lesson for the Tory 2019 vote to ponder perhaps.
Absolutely, it cuts both ways. You can vote Cameron and get ultimately Boris, you can vote Blair and get Brown.
I meant vote Boris get the IEA. The equivalent is vote Blair get Corbyn.
That's Parliamentary democracy. We don't elect a President.
Indeed. But I don't think this is the administration the country wanted. You may differ. It's 1993 again.
No, it’s 1995. But Redwood won.
Talking of weird counterfactuals, perhaps that would have been better for the Tories in the long run. He couldn't have done worse in the 1997 election, and they could have skipped the Hague, IDS, Howard wilderness years and gone straight to someone electable after losing.
He could have done, the Tories would likely have lost even more seats under Redwood in 1997 albeit with a few votes regained from the Referendum Party and UKIP
Well watching the Truss coverage and the punditry I do get the impression of an almost completely new government staking out a pretty stupid and possibly ruinous new direction.
Yet with no general election, little support amongst MPs, no mandate at all really other than from the tiny demographic of members of the Conservative Party, and not even there since they'd still prefer Boris Johnson.
Feels wrong. Doesn't feel like a democracy in working order.
If Parliament passes the laws and budgets the Government proposes then it is absolutely democracy as it has run for the last couple of centuries. I may not like Truss (I really don't) but that is the system.
Actually I do think we should return to an earlier Parliamentary system that existed prior to 1926 when an MP who was not already a minister had to stand for re-election if appointed to Government outside of the immediate aftermath of a GE. .
It's within the rules, yes, but that doesn't mean it can't feel lacking in democratic terms. Us in the EU was in the rules too, but still there was much talk of a "democratic deficit" wasn't there?
Or a different example. Starmer wins in 24 on a moderate ticket then implements Corbyn's 2019 manifesto. Within the rules. Not outside the system. But democratic? Hmm.
If you don't want a Corbynite government, don't vote Labour.
A lesson for the Tory 2019 vote to ponder perhaps.
Absolutely, it cuts both ways. You can vote Cameron and get ultimately Boris, you can vote Blair and get Brown.
I meant vote Boris get the IEA. The equivalent is vote Blair get Corbyn.
That's Parliamentary democracy. We don't elect a President.
Indeed. But I don't think this is the administration the country wanted. You may differ. It's 1993 again.
It may not be the administration the country wanted, its the administration the country has.
If you wanted it to stick with the administration the country wanted, then Boris should have stayed, but enough was enough.
In which case you're headed for Opposition with ideological integrity intact.
I've said all along, I'd prefer that than the alternative. 👍
If you have to sell your soul to have your party in office, then office isn't worth it.
Chapeau. It's rare to see an ideologue on here who'll admit to being one. Kudos.
There are times you need to compromise in order to get some of what you want, instead of none of it. But there are some things that are deal breakers.
To me, the NI rise was 100% in the latter category. Voting for that is as anathema for me as voting for someone who made abortion illegal or comparable extremes I'd hate.
If I had a system which is trying to keep count of stock, if I use an SQL database the count will always be correct because of ACID principles right, at the expense of speed? Would this be okay if I am keeping count of stock which has thousands of orders per minute?
I'm sure there used to be one or two on here but can't remember who exactly.
This promise on doctors and dentists looks a hostage to fortune. How do you magick them up?
I expect an exodus. Every week I hear another colleague giving notice.
This is feeble. I haven’t had a pay rise for my travel writing from the Knapper’s Gazette for 3 years. So effectively I’m taking a huge pay CUT when you factor into inflation?
But do I go on strike like the bloody barristers? Do I walk out the job like the feeble doctors?
NO I DO NOT
I carry on flying out to sun kissed countries to have delicious free meals, helicopter rides over waterfalls, and complimentary “four hand” Ayurvedic massage from nubile Laotian nymphs
AND I DON’T WHINGE
Sometimes you’ve just got to knuckle down, grit your teeth, and get through the next 5 star spa session, for the good of the country, not yourself
Yes, pity the poor GPs, averaging more than £100k a year if a partner and with plenty of holidays.
Most people in this country will be having a far more difficult time paying their bills than doctors and surgeons will this winter, even with extra government support
OT. Plans have been submitted to Lincs County Council to put three solar farms in North Lincolnshire covering 10,000 acres of farmland. It does seem a hell of a lot of farmland to take out of production.
This promise on doctors and dentists looks a hostage to fortune. How do you magick them up?
I expect an exodus. Every week I hear another colleague giving notice.
This is feeble. I haven’t had a pay rise for my travel writing from the Knapper’s Gazette for 3 years. So effectively I’m taking a huge pay CUT when you factor into inflation?
But do I go on strike like the bloody barristers? Do I walk out the job like the feeble doctors?
NO I DO NOT
I carry on flying out to sun kissed countries to have delicious free meals, helicopter rides over waterfalls, and complimentary “four hand” Ayurvedic massage from nubile Laotian nymphs
AND I DON’T WHINGE
Sometimes you’ve just got to knuckle down, grit your teeth, and get through the next 5 star spa session, for the good of the country, not yourself
Yes, pity the poor GPs, averaging more than £100k a year if a partner and with plenty of holidays.
Most people in this country will be having a far more difficult time paying their bills than doctors and surgeons will this winter, even with extra government support
Exactly. Meanwhile us poor bloody infantry just soldier on!
*turns off bespoke suite-corner Limelight hydromassage*
If I had a system which is trying to keep count of stock, if I use an SQL database the count will always be correct because of ACID principles right, at the expense of speed? Would this be okay if I am keeping count of stock which has thousands of orders per minute?
According to the Azure marketing training I did recently you risk running into problems with the demand on a SQL database in that situation.
When you need low latency you're probably better off with a NoSQL database. It will still be ACID, but it will be faster than SQL.
Fortunately Microsoft can provide you with a NoSQL database on Azure...
JRM as business secretary. Is she having a laugh at the nation's expense or something?
If we're lucky, yes.
If we're unlucky, this is all for real.
Is there any evidence that Truss does jokes? Remember that she's fundamentally a maths student, and maths jokes don't get better than
Why is six afraid of seven? Because seven eight nine.
What does that mean, she's "fundamentally a maths student"? That her father is a (now emeritus) maths professor? She doesn't seem to be a daddy's girl at all. That she's interested in maths education? Why shouldn't she be?
Maths jokes get a lot better than that.
Q. What's an anagram of Banach-Tarski? A. Banach-Tarski Banach-Tarski.
Q. Why does the mathematician call his dog Cauchy? A. Because it leaves a residue at every pole.
A Levels in Maths and Further Maths. And this little vignette from Tim Harford;
Back in 1994/95, I studied mathematical logic with Liz Truss. Just the two of us + the prof. Cantor's infinities. Peano arithmetic. Turing machines. All the good stuff. I wonder if it will help her with the job? Let's hope so.
Nothing wrong with that. I've got A Levels in Maths, FM and Physics, and a degree in a really niche bit of Earth Science which means I'm not trusted with a geological hammer. But people who excel in those subjects see the world in a distinctive way. One where The Big Bang Theory was a documentary.
I've got the same A Levels as you, although my degrees are outside of science and maths. Good to know Truss studied some maths when she was doing PPE. At least it would be nice to think she did it because she was interested, rather than it being the easy option because she was already familiar with most of the material by dint of being her father's daughter, which is possible. He specialises in mathematical logic.
OT. Plans have been submitted to Lincs County Council to put three solar farms in North Lincolnshire covering 10,000 acres of farmland. It does seem a hell of a lot of farmland to take out of production.
It is apparently 0.3% of the total farmed area in the East Midlands (from back-of-the-envelope math), so maybe? On the other hand: is this good productive farmland, or low-quality lousy farmland? And we do seem to currently be rather badly short of energy and not so obviously short of food -- plus it's a lot easier to import wheat and potatoes if we need to than it is energy...
Absolutely!
We get whimpered excuses from those who love the agricultural lobby about how important food security is for our nation, but its the 21st century. Energy security is every bit as important as food security is.
70% of our country is reserved to farmland and we're still not self-sustainable on food, or energy. Maybe reserving all that land to agriculture isn't the wisest idea, and maybe less of the land but being more intensive and productive might end up generating more food rather than less.
It has been a Parliamentary Under Secretary position more often than not, perhaps they will appoint one
Yes and as such it did very little to support veterans. Hence the reason Mercer fought and succeeded in having it made into a ministerial position.
This is basically Truss saying she doesn't give a flying fuck about veterans.
The job is basically fighting off prosecutions, not sure it does much beyond that for veterans anyway.
No the job was so much more than that. Prosecutions was almost a sideshow to the real issues facing veterans and that was what Mercer had been doing. As an example it wasn't until last year that the Government even bothered to record rates of veteran suicides.
Clearly Mercer was right. They couldn't find anyone better than him to do the job so the only alternative was to scrap it entirely and forget about helping veterans
JRM as business secretary. Is she having a laugh at the nation's expense or something?
If we're lucky, yes.
If we're unlucky, this is all for real.
Is there any evidence that Truss does jokes? Remember that she's fundamentally a maths student, and maths jokes don't get better than
Why is six afraid of seven? Because seven eight nine.
What does that mean, she's "fundamentally a maths student"? That her father is a (now emeritus) maths professor? She doesn't seem to be a daddy's girl at all. That she's interested in maths education? Why shouldn't she be?
Maths jokes get a lot better than that.
Q. What's an anagram of Banach-Tarski? A. Banach-Tarski Banach-Tarski.
Q. Why does the mathematician call his dog Cauchy? A. Because it leaves a residue at every pole.
Those are shit.
Banach-Tarski
Banach-Tarski would be slightly better.
She has maths and further maths a levels.
I thought the two copies were meant to be identical to the original?
As a mere Engineer, I could never quite get that to work in reality.
This promise on doctors and dentists looks a hostage to fortune. How do you magick them up?
I expect an exodus. Every week I hear another colleague giving notice.
This is feeble. I haven’t had a pay rise for my travel writing from the Knapper’s Gazette for 3 years. So effectively I’m taking a huge pay CUT when you factor into inflation?
But do I go on strike like the bloody barristers? Do I walk out the job like the feeble doctors?
NO I DO NOT
I carry on flying out to sun kissed countries to have delicious free meals, helicopter rides over waterfalls, and complimentary “four hand” Ayurvedic massage from nubile Laotian nymphs
AND I DON’T WHINGE
Sometimes you’ve just got to knuckle down, grit your teeth, and get through the next 5 star spa session, for the good of the country, not yourself
Remember in the old days when you flew and they showed a film and they would censor out the swear words (in case kiddies were watching)? Could somebody with half a clue produce a censored version of PB where all of Leon was censored out? I’d maybe actually pay for that.
OT. Plans have been submitted to Lincs County Council to put three solar farms in North Lincolnshire covering 10,000 acres of farmland. It does seem a hell of a lot of farmland to take out of production.
It is apparently 0.3% of the total farmed area in the East Midlands (from back-of-the-envelope math), so maybe? On the other hand: is this good productive farmland, or low-quality lousy farmland? And we do seem to currently be rather badly short of energy and not so obviously short of food -- plus it's a lot easier to import wheat and potatoes if we need to than it is energy...
Absolutely!
We get whimpered excuses from those who love the agricultural lobby about how important food security is for our nation, but its the 21st century. Energy security is every bit as important as food security is.
70% of our country is reserved to farmland and we're still not self-sustainable on food, or energy. Maybe reserving all that land to agriculture isn't the wisest idea, and maybe less of the land but being more intensive and productive might end up generating more food rather than less.
This shouldn't really need pointing out in a forum populated by adults capable of basic reasoning, but there's never a shortage of something until major sources of supply leave the market; that has happened with energy, hence we now have a crisis, and it is also happening with food. This isn't some brainfart by someone at DEFRA, it's happening globally - notably in places like Holland that supply a vast amount of Europe's food, where there have been huge protests about it. Liz Truss has noted her disapproval for solar panels replacing food production, and she's also put in place a new Agriculture Secretary, so let's hope she proves as good as her word.
OT. Plans have been submitted to Lincs County Council to put three solar farms in North Lincolnshire covering 10,000 acres of farmland. It does seem a hell of a lot of farmland to take out of production.
It is apparently 0.3% of the total farmed area in the East Midlands (from back-of-the-envelope math), so maybe? On the other hand: is this good productive farmland, or low-quality lousy farmland? And we do seem to currently be rather badly short of energy and not so obviously short of food -- plus it's a lot easier to import wheat and potatoes if we need to than it is energy...
Be interested to know where that is.
There's a lot of solar panels in North Nottinghamshire (Harworth Estate etc) but not usually on prime agricultural land.
OT. Plans have been submitted to Lincs County Council to put three solar farms in North Lincolnshire covering 10,000 acres of farmland. It does seem a hell of a lot of farmland to take out of production.
It is apparently 0.3% of the total farmed area in the East Midlands (from back-of-the-envelope math), so maybe? On the other hand: is this good productive farmland, or low-quality lousy farmland? And we do seem to currently be rather badly short of energy and not so obviously short of food -- plus it's a lot easier to import wheat and potatoes if we need to than it is energy...
Absolutely!
We get whimpered excuses from those who love the agricultural lobby about how important food security is for our nation, but its the 21st century. Energy security is every bit as important as food security is.
70% of our country is reserved to farmland and we're still not self-sustainable on food, or energy. Maybe reserving all that land to agriculture isn't the wisest idea, and maybe less of the land but being more intensive and productive might end up generating more food rather than less.
This shouldn't really need pointing out in a forum populated by adults capable of basic reasoning, but there's never a shortage of something until major sources of supply leave the market; that has happened with energy, hence we now have a crisis, and it is also happening with food. This isn't some brainfart by someone at DEFRA, it's happening globally - notably in places like Holland that supply a vast amount of Europe's food, where there have been huge protests about it. Liz Truss has noted her disapproval for solar panels replacing food production, and she's also put in place a new Agriculture Secretary, so let's hope she proves as good as her word.
The UK has 70% of land dedicated to agriculture yet imports 46% of its food consumed.
Now if you want the UK to be self-reliable on agriculture you need to increase agriculture to 130% of land use, or you need to improve the productivity and intensity of UK agriculture.
If you want the UK to be self-assured and self-reliable on all the essentials then energy in the 21st century is every bit as essential as agriculture.
This shouldn't really need pointing out in a forum populated by adults capable of basic reasoning, but there's never a shortage of something until major sources of supply leave the market; that has happened with energy, hence we now have a crisis, and it is also happening with food. This isn't some brainfart by someone at DEFRA, it's happening globally - notably in places like Holland that supply a vast amount of Europe's food, where there have been huge protests about it. Liz Truss has noted her disapproval for solar panels replacing food production, and she's also put in place a new Agriculture Secretary, so let's hope she proves as good as her word.
So, what are the figures here? Russian gas was (per google) about 40% of EU gas consumption, so losing that has indeed caused a crisis. How much food production are we losing to solar panels in the EU? 40%? 4%? 0.4%?
Also, unlike the energy crisis, there is a natural equilibrium here that means crisis in the true sense is unlikely -- if food production reduces, food prices go up, and it becomes economically better to farm rather than to put in solar panels, so the conversion of land from agriculture to energy production naturally slows and stops. This isn't a situation like Russian gas where the supply has been artificially choked off. Surely a right-wing free market government would prefer to simply let the market determine whether we cover Lincolnshire in solar panels or turnip fields :-)
OT. Plans have been submitted to Lincs County Council to put three solar farms in North Lincolnshire covering 10,000 acres of farmland. It does seem a hell of a lot of farmland to take out of production.
It is apparently 0.3% of the total farmed area in the East Midlands (from back-of-the-envelope math), so maybe? On the other hand: is this good productive farmland, or low-quality lousy farmland? And we do seem to currently be rather badly short of energy and not so obviously short of food -- plus it's a lot easier to import wheat and potatoes if we need to than it is energy...
Absolutely!
We get whimpered excuses from those who love the agricultural lobby about how important food security is for our nation, but its the 21st century. Energy security is every bit as important as food security is.
70% of our country is reserved to farmland and we're still not self-sustainable on food, or energy. Maybe reserving all that land to agriculture isn't the wisest idea, and maybe less of the land but being more intensive and productive might end up generating more food rather than less.
This shouldn't really need pointing out in a forum populated by adults capable of basic reasoning, but there's never a shortage of something until major sources of supply leave the market; that has happened with energy, hence we now have a crisis, and it is also happening with food. This isn't some brainfart by someone at DEFRA, it's happening globally - notably in places like Holland that supply a vast amount of Europe's food, where there have been huge protests about it. Liz Truss has noted her disapproval for solar panels replacing food production, and she's also put in place a new Agriculture Secretary, so let's hope she proves as good as her word.
The UK has 70% of land dedicated to agriculture yet imports 46% of its food consumed.
Now if you want the UK to be self-reliable on agriculture you need to increase agriculture to 130% of land use, or you need to improve the productivity and intensity of UK agriculture.
If you want the UK to be self-assured and self-reliable on all the essentials then energy in the 21st century is every bit as essential as agriculture.
So how exactly does scrapping vast tracts of farm land improve that situation?
And energy, whilst important, is clearly not as essential to human life as food - life would be unpleasant without the former, but impossible without the latter.
I actually agree that we should look at ways to improve both the quality and yield of our agricultural output, but pulling it up in favour of rubbish solar schemes (in flipping Lincolnshire I ask you), or half baked 'rewilding' takes us further away from where we need to be. It is driven by an international effort whose adherents believe that humanity should cease to thrive, and go in to economical decline. I reject that utterly, and as a believer in the power of the market economy, I would expect you to reject it too.
Over a third of the 43 MPs who supported Liz in the first round of leadership voting have been given jobs in Cabinet.
To the victors go the spoils. 👍
Truss should have a Cabinet that agrees with her agenda. If this were just a personality spat it would be less dramatic, but given Team Sunak disagreed with Team Liz on matters of core policy they should be nowhere near the Cabinet.
OT. Plans have been submitted to Lincs County Council to put three solar farms in North Lincolnshire covering 10,000 acres of farmland. It does seem a hell of a lot of farmland to take out of production.
It is apparently 0.3% of the total farmed area in the East Midlands (from back-of-the-envelope math), so maybe? On the other hand: is this good productive farmland, or low-quality lousy farmland? And we do seem to currently be rather badly short of energy and not so obviously short of food -- plus it's a lot easier to import wheat and potatoes if we need to than it is energy...
Absolutely!
We get whimpered excuses from those who love the agricultural lobby about how important food security is for our nation, but its the 21st century. Energy security is every bit as important as food security is.
70% of our country is reserved to farmland and we're still not self-sustainable on food, or energy. Maybe reserving all that land to agriculture isn't the wisest idea, and maybe less of the land but being more intensive and productive might end up generating more food rather than less.
This shouldn't really need pointing out in a forum populated by adults capable of basic reasoning, but there's never a shortage of something until major sources of supply leave the market; that has happened with energy, hence we now have a crisis, and it is also happening with food. This isn't some brainfart by someone at DEFRA, it's happening globally - notably in places like Holland that supply a vast amount of Europe's food, where there have been huge protests about it. Liz Truss has noted her disapproval for solar panels replacing food production, and she's also put in place a new Agriculture Secretary, so let's hope she proves as good as her word.
The UK has 70% of land dedicated to agriculture yet imports 46% of its food consumed.
Now if you want the UK to be self-reliable on agriculture you need to increase agriculture to 130% of land use, or you need to improve the productivity and intensity of UK agriculture.
If you want the UK to be self-assured and self-reliable on all the essentials then energy in the 21st century is every bit as essential as agriculture.
So how exactly does scrapping vast tracts of farm land improve that situation?
And energy, whilst important, is clearly not as essential to human life as food - life would be unpleasant without the former, but impossible without the latter.
I actually agree that we should look at ways to improve both the quality and yield of our agricultural output, but pulling it up in favour of rubbish solar schemes (in flipping Lincolnshire I ask you), or half baked 'rewilding' takes us further away from where we need to be. It is driven by an international effort whose adherents believe that humanity should cease to thrive, and go in to economical decline. I reject that utterly, and as a believer in the power of the market economy, I would expect you to reject it too.
If the vast tracts of so called "farm land" are inefficient and not generating food, then getting rid of them is no real loss.
Agriculture can be far more intensive in much of the world than in this nation, if all your argument is, is in favour of self-reliability then I would suggest as a rule of thumb that every 1% of land ought to be able to provide enough output to feed 2% of population. Do that and 50% of the land being agriculture leaves us self-reliable, with a further 20% of land to allow us to be self-reliable on other issues like energy, manufacturing etc
If you oppose more intensivity, then you're not really interested in self-reliability and its just an excuse.
EDIT: As a believer in a market economy I believe it ought to be up to the land owner to determine what to do with their land. If the land owner thinks their land would be more productive as a solar farm than any other type of farm, then that is their choice, and I respect that, its not mine or yours to make.
Over a third of the 43 MPs who supported Liz in the first round of leadership voting have been given jobs in Cabinet.
To the victors go the spoils. 👍
Truss should have a Cabinet that agrees with her agenda. If this were just a personality spat it would be less dramatic, but given Team Sunak disagreed with Team Liz on matters of core policy they should be nowhere near the Cabinet.
For sure, but that in turn means the Cabinet is wholeheartedly supported by 100-200 MPs.
Over a third of the 43 MPs who supported Liz in the first round of leadership voting have been given jobs in Cabinet.
To the victors go the spoils. 👍
Truss should have a Cabinet that agrees with her agenda. If this were just a personality spat it would be less dramatic, but given Team Sunak disagreed with Team Liz on matters of core policy they should be nowhere near the Cabinet.
For sure, but that in turn means the Cabinet is wholeheartedly supported by 100-200 MPs.
That's probably correct, yes. But as long as that 100-200 can get ~325 to vote for them on matters of confidence and supply, then they will be able to continue until this Parliament is dissolved.
Over a third of the 43 MPs who supported Liz in the first round of leadership voting have been given jobs in Cabinet.
To the victors go the spoils. 👍
Truss should have a Cabinet that agrees with her agenda. If this were just a personality spat it would be less dramatic, but given Team Sunak disagreed with Team Liz on matters of core policy they should be nowhere near the Cabinet.
For sure, but that in turn means the Cabinet is wholeheartedly supported by 100-200 MPs.
That's probably correct, yes. But as long as that 100-200 can get ~325 to vote for them on matters of confidence and supply, then they will be able to continue until this Parliament is dissolved.
A rousing message to the country - we hang on and await dissolution.
Over a third of the 43 MPs who supported Liz in the first round of leadership voting have been given jobs in Cabinet.
To the victors go the spoils. 👍
Truss should have a Cabinet that agrees with her agenda. If this were just a personality spat it would be less dramatic, but given Team Sunak disagreed with Team Liz on matters of core policy they should be nowhere near the Cabinet.
For sure, but that in turn means the Cabinet is wholeheartedly supported by 100-200 MPs.
That's probably correct, yes. But as long as that 100-200 can get ~325 to vote for them on matters of confidence and supply, then they will be able to continue until this Parliament is dissolved.
A rousing message to the country - we hang on and await dissolution.
Surely the message from Truss this week is that she knows she needs to "deliver"?
If she does, then she may deserve re-election. If she doesn't, then she won't. Having a Cabinet that don't even want to deliver what she is trying to deliver, won't help anything.
Over a third of the 43 MPs who supported Liz in the first round of leadership voting have been given jobs in Cabinet.
To the victors go the spoils. 👍
Truss should have a Cabinet that agrees with her agenda. If this were just a personality spat it would be less dramatic, but given Team Sunak disagreed with Team Liz on matters of core policy they should be nowhere near the Cabinet.
For sure, but that in turn means the Cabinet is wholeheartedly supported by 100-200 MPs.
If she does well she'll get the backing of most of the rest. If she does badly she would have lost support of a bunch anyway.
OT. Plans have been submitted to Lincs County Council to put three solar farms in North Lincolnshire covering 10,000 acres of farmland. It does seem a hell of a lot of farmland to take out of production.
It is apparently 0.3% of the total farmed area in the East Midlands (from back-of-the-envelope math), so maybe? On the other hand: is this good productive farmland, or low-quality lousy farmland? And we do seem to currently be rather badly short of energy and not so obviously short of food -- plus it's a lot easier to import wheat and potatoes if we need to than it is energy...
Absolutely!
We get whimpered excuses from those who love the agricultural lobby about how important food security is for our nation, but its the 21st century. Energy security is every bit as important as food security is.
70% of our country is reserved to farmland and we're still not self-sustainable on food, or energy. Maybe reserving all that land to agriculture isn't the wisest idea, and maybe less of the land but being more intensive and productive might end up generating more food rather than less.
This shouldn't really need pointing out in a forum populated by adults capable of basic reasoning, but there's never a shortage of something until major sources of supply leave the market; that has happened with energy, hence we now have a crisis, and it is also happening with food. This isn't some brainfart by someone at DEFRA, it's happening globally - notably in places like Holland that supply a vast amount of Europe's food, where there have been huge protests about it. Liz Truss has noted her disapproval for solar panels replacing food production, and she's also put in place a new Agriculture Secretary, so let's hope she proves as good as her word.
The UK has 70% of land dedicated to agriculture yet imports 46% of its food consumed.
Now if you want the UK to be self-reliable on agriculture you need to increase agriculture to 130% of land use, or you need to improve the productivity and intensity of UK agriculture.
If you want the UK to be self-assured and self-reliable on all the essentials then energy in the 21st century is every bit as essential as agriculture.
So how exactly does scrapping vast tracts of farm land improve that situation?
And energy, whilst important, is clearly not as essential to human life as food - life would be unpleasant without the former, but impossible without the latter.
I actually agree that we should look at ways to improve both the quality and yield of our agricultural output, but pulling it up in favour of rubbish solar schemes (in flipping Lincolnshire I ask you), or half baked 'rewilding' takes us further away from where we need to be. It is driven by an international effort whose adherents believe that humanity should cease to thrive, and go in to economical decline. I reject that utterly, and as a believer in the power of the market economy, I would expect you to reject it too.
If the vast tracts of so called "farm land" are inefficient and not generating food, then getting rid of them is no real loss.
Agriculture can be far more intensive in much of the world than in this nation, if all your argument is, is in favour of self-reliability then I would suggest as a rule of thumb that every 1% of land ought to be able to provide enough output to feed 2% of population. Do that and 50% of the land being agriculture leaves us self-reliable, with a further 20% of land to allow us to be self-reliable on other issues like energy, manufacturing etc
If you oppose more intensivity, then you're not really interested in self-reliability and its just an excuse.
EDIT: As a believer in a market economy I believe it ought to be up to the land owner to determine what to do with their land. If the land owner thinks their land would be more productive as a solar farm than any other type of farm, then that is their choice, and I respect that, its not mine or yours to make.
Before we rush to cover up agricultural land, we should surely make a lot more use of our built environment.
For example, there's some monster Amazon sheds round here that must be 10ha each.
Why on earth aren't these covered in solar panels?
OT. Plans have been submitted to Lincs County Council to put three solar farms in North Lincolnshire covering 10,000 acres of farmland. It does seem a hell of a lot of farmland to take out of production.
It is apparently 0.3% of the total farmed area in the East Midlands (from back-of-the-envelope math), so maybe? On the other hand: is this good productive farmland, or low-quality lousy farmland? And we do seem to currently be rather badly short of energy and not so obviously short of food -- plus it's a lot easier to import wheat and potatoes if we need to than it is energy...
Absolutely!
We get whimpered excuses from those who love the agricultural lobby about how important food security is for our nation, but its the 21st century. Energy security is every bit as important as food security is.
70% of our country is reserved to farmland and we're still not self-sustainable on food, or energy. Maybe reserving all that land to agriculture isn't the wisest idea, and maybe less of the land but being more intensive and productive might end up generating more food rather than less.
This shouldn't really need pointing out in a forum populated by adults capable of basic reasoning, but there's never a shortage of something until major sources of supply leave the market; that has happened with energy, hence we now have a crisis, and it is also happening with food. This isn't some brainfart by someone at DEFRA, it's happening globally - notably in places like Holland that supply a vast amount of Europe's food, where there have been huge protests about it. Liz Truss has noted her disapproval for solar panels replacing food production, and she's also put in place a new Agriculture Secretary, so let's hope she proves as good as her word.
The UK has 70% of land dedicated to agriculture yet imports 46% of its food consumed.
Now if you want the UK to be self-reliable on agriculture you need to increase agriculture to 130% of land use, or you need to improve the productivity and intensity of UK agriculture.
If you want the UK to be self-assured and self-reliable on all the essentials then energy in the 21st century is every bit as essential as agriculture.
So how exactly does scrapping vast tracts of farm land improve that situation?
And energy, whilst important, is clearly not as essential to human life as food - life would be unpleasant without the former, but impossible without the latter.
I actually agree that we should look at ways to improve both the quality and yield of our agricultural output, but pulling it up in favour of rubbish solar schemes (in flipping Lincolnshire I ask you), or half baked 'rewilding' takes us further away from where we need to be. It is driven by an international effort whose adherents believe that humanity should cease to thrive, and go in to economical decline. I reject that utterly, and as a believer in the power of the market economy, I would expect you to reject it too.
If the vast tracts of so called "farm land" are inefficient and not generating food, then getting rid of them is no real loss.
Agriculture can be far more intensive in much of the world than in this nation, if all your argument is, is in favour of self-reliability then I would suggest as a rule of thumb that every 1% of land ought to be able to provide enough output to feed 2% of population. Do that and 50% of the land being agriculture leaves us self-reliable, with a further 20% of land to allow us to be self-reliable on other issues like energy, manufacturing etc
If you oppose more intensivity, then you're not really interested in self-reliability and its just an excuse.
EDIT: As a believer in a market economy I believe it ought to be up to the land owner to determine what to do with their land. If the land owner thinks their land would be more productive as a solar farm than any other type of farm, then that is their choice, and I respect that, its not mine or yours to make.
Before we rush to cover up agricultural land, we should surely make a lot more use of our built environment.
For example, there's some monster Amazon sheds round here that must be 10ha each.
Why on earth aren't these covered in solar panels?
Most likely because the roof was built as cheaply as possible and so wouldn't support the weight of the panels.
OT. Plans have been submitted to Lincs County Council to put three solar farms in North Lincolnshire covering 10,000 acres of farmland. It does seem a hell of a lot of farmland to take out of production.
It is apparently 0.3% of the total farmed area in the East Midlands (from back-of-the-envelope math), so maybe? On the other hand: is this good productive farmland, or low-quality lousy farmland? And we do seem to currently be rather badly short of energy and not so obviously short of food -- plus it's a lot easier to import wheat and potatoes if we need to than it is energy...
Absolutely!
We get whimpered excuses from those who love the agricultural lobby about how important food security is for our nation, but its the 21st century. Energy security is every bit as important as food security is.
70% of our country is reserved to farmland and we're still not self-sustainable on food, or energy. Maybe reserving all that land to agriculture isn't the wisest idea, and maybe less of the land but being more intensive and productive might end up generating more food rather than less.
This shouldn't really need pointing out in a forum populated by adults capable of basic reasoning, but there's never a shortage of something until major sources of supply leave the market; that has happened with energy, hence we now have a crisis, and it is also happening with food. This isn't some brainfart by someone at DEFRA, it's happening globally - notably in places like Holland that supply a vast amount of Europe's food, where there have been huge protests about it. Liz Truss has noted her disapproval for solar panels replacing food production, and she's also put in place a new Agriculture Secretary, so let's hope she proves as good as her word.
The UK has 70% of land dedicated to agriculture yet imports 46% of its food consumed.
Now if you want the UK to be self-reliable on agriculture you need to increase agriculture to 130% of land use, or you need to improve the productivity and intensity of UK agriculture.
If you want the UK to be self-assured and self-reliable on all the essentials then energy in the 21st century is every bit as essential as agriculture.
So how exactly does scrapping vast tracts of farm land improve that situation?
And energy, whilst important, is clearly not as essential to human life as food - life would be unpleasant without the former, but impossible without the latter.
I actually agree that we should look at ways to improve both the quality and yield of our agricultural output, but pulling it up in favour of rubbish solar schemes (in flipping Lincolnshire I ask you), or half baked 'rewilding' takes us further away from where we need to be. It is driven by an international effort whose adherents believe that humanity should cease to thrive, and go in to economical decline. I reject that utterly, and as a believer in the power of the market economy, I would expect you to reject it too.
If the vast tracts of so called "farm land" are inefficient and not generating food, then getting rid of them is no real loss.
Agriculture can be far more intensive in much of the world than in this nation, if all your argument is, is in favour of self-reliability then I would suggest as a rule of thumb that every 1% of land ought to be able to provide enough output to feed 2% of population. Do that and 50% of the land being agriculture leaves us self-reliable, with a further 20% of land to allow us to be self-reliable on other issues like energy, manufacturing etc
If you oppose more intensivity, then you're not really interested in self-reliability and its just an excuse.
EDIT: As a believer in a market economy I believe it ought to be up to the land owner to determine what to do with their land. If the land owner thinks their land would be more productive as a solar farm than any other type of farm, then that is their choice, and I respect that, its not mine or yours to make.
Before we rush to cover up agricultural land, we should surely make a lot more use of our built environment.
For example, there's some monster Amazon sheds round here that must be 10ha each.
Why on earth aren't these covered in solar panels?
Why is it either/or? Why not both?
Firms like Amazon have made a great deal of fuss lately of installing solar where its viable, and it makes business sense where its viable to do so too. So if its not being done, perhaps it isn't viable? Eg as the buildings aren't structurally sound for the added weight of solar panels, or for other reason?
Either way, let Amazon determine what to do with their land, let farmers decide what to do with their own land too.
OT. Plans have been submitted to Lincs County Council to put three solar farms in North Lincolnshire covering 10,000 acres of farmland. It does seem a hell of a lot of farmland to take out of production.
It is apparently 0.3% of the total farmed area in the East Midlands (from back-of-the-envelope math), so maybe? On the other hand: is this good productive farmland, or low-quality lousy farmland? And we do seem to currently be rather badly short of energy and not so obviously short of food -- plus it's a lot easier to import wheat and potatoes if we need to than it is energy...
Absolutely!
We get whimpered excuses from those who love the agricultural lobby about how important food security is for our nation, but its the 21st century. Energy security is every bit as important as food security is.
70% of our country is reserved to farmland and we're still not self-sustainable on food, or energy. Maybe reserving all that land to agriculture isn't the wisest idea, and maybe less of the land but being more intensive and productive might end up generating more food rather than less.
This shouldn't really need pointing out in a forum populated by adults capable of basic reasoning, but there's never a shortage of something until major sources of supply leave the market; that has happened with energy, hence we now have a crisis, and it is also happening with food. This isn't some brainfart by someone at DEFRA, it's happening globally - notably in places like Holland that supply a vast amount of Europe's food, where there have been huge protests about it. Liz Truss has noted her disapproval for solar panels replacing food production, and she's also put in place a new Agriculture Secretary, so let's hope she proves as good as her word.
The UK has 70% of land dedicated to agriculture yet imports 46% of its food consumed.
Now if you want the UK to be self-reliable on agriculture you need to increase agriculture to 130% of land use, or you need to improve the productivity and intensity of UK agriculture.
If you want the UK to be self-assured and self-reliable on all the essentials then energy in the 21st century is every bit as essential as agriculture.
So how exactly does scrapping vast tracts of farm land improve that situation?
And energy, whilst important, is clearly not as essential to human life as food - life would be unpleasant without the former, but impossible without the latter.
I actually agree that we should look at ways to improve both the quality and yield of our agricultural output, but pulling it up in favour of rubbish solar schemes (in flipping Lincolnshire I ask you), or half baked 'rewilding' takes us further away from where we need to be. It is driven by an international effort whose adherents believe that humanity should cease to thrive, and go in to economical decline. I reject that utterly, and as a believer in the power of the market economy, I would expect you to reject it too.
If the vast tracts of so called "farm land" are inefficient and not generating food, then getting rid of them is no real loss.
Agriculture can be far more intensive in much of the world than in this nation, if all your argument is, is in favour of self-reliability then I would suggest as a rule of thumb that every 1% of land ought to be able to provide enough output to feed 2% of population. Do that and 50% of the land being agriculture leaves us self-reliable, with a further 20% of land to allow us to be self-reliable on other issues like energy, manufacturing etc
If you oppose more intensivity, then you're not really interested in self-reliability and its just an excuse.
EDIT: As a believer in a market economy I believe it ought to be up to the land owner to determine what to do with their land. If the land owner thinks their land would be more productive as a solar farm than any other type of farm, then that is their choice, and I respect that, its not mine or yours to make.
If you're such a believer in the free market, you'd be against any form of Government mandated market distortion that would mean that a solar farm in Lincolnshire makes any sort of financial sense - Green levies etc.
OT. Plans have been submitted to Lincs County Council to put three solar farms in North Lincolnshire covering 10,000 acres of farmland. It does seem a hell of a lot of farmland to take out of production.
It is apparently 0.3% of the total farmed area in the East Midlands (from back-of-the-envelope math), so maybe? On the other hand: is this good productive farmland, or low-quality lousy farmland? And we do seem to currently be rather badly short of energy and not so obviously short of food -- plus it's a lot easier to import wheat and potatoes if we need to than it is energy...
Absolutely!
We get whimpered excuses from those who love the agricultural lobby about how important food security is for our nation, but its the 21st century. Energy security is every bit as important as food security is.
70% of our country is reserved to farmland and we're still not self-sustainable on food, or energy. Maybe reserving all that land to agriculture isn't the wisest idea, and maybe less of the land but being more intensive and productive might end up generating more food rather than less.
This shouldn't really need pointing out in a forum populated by adults capable of basic reasoning, but there's never a shortage of something until major sources of supply leave the market; that has happened with energy, hence we now have a crisis, and it is also happening with food. This isn't some brainfart by someone at DEFRA, it's happening globally - notably in places like Holland that supply a vast amount of Europe's food, where there have been huge protests about it. Liz Truss has noted her disapproval for solar panels replacing food production, and she's also put in place a new Agriculture Secretary, so let's hope she proves as good as her word.
The UK has 70% of land dedicated to agriculture yet imports 46% of its food consumed.
Now if you want the UK to be self-reliable on agriculture you need to increase agriculture to 130% of land use, or you need to improve the productivity and intensity of UK agriculture.
If you want the UK to be self-assured and self-reliable on all the essentials then energy in the 21st century is every bit as essential as agriculture.
So how exactly does scrapping vast tracts of farm land improve that situation?
And energy, whilst important, is clearly not as essential to human life as food - life would be unpleasant without the former, but impossible without the latter.
I actually agree that we should look at ways to improve both the quality and yield of our agricultural output, but pulling it up in favour of rubbish solar schemes (in flipping Lincolnshire I ask you), or half baked 'rewilding' takes us further away from where we need to be. It is driven by an international effort whose adherents believe that humanity should cease to thrive, and go in to economical decline. I reject that utterly, and as a believer in the power of the market economy, I would expect you to reject it too.
If the vast tracts of so called "farm land" are inefficient and not generating food, then getting rid of them is no real loss.
Agriculture can be far more intensive in much of the world than in this nation, if all your argument is, is in favour of self-reliability then I would suggest as a rule of thumb that every 1% of land ought to be able to provide enough output to feed 2% of population. Do that and 50% of the land being agriculture leaves us self-reliable, with a further 20% of land to allow us to be self-reliable on other issues like energy, manufacturing etc
If you oppose more intensivity, then you're not really interested in self-reliability and its just an excuse.
EDIT: As a believer in a market economy I believe it ought to be up to the land owner to determine what to do with their land. If the land owner thinks their land would be more productive as a solar farm than any other type of farm, then that is their choice, and I respect that, its not mine or yours to make.
If you're such a believer in the free market, you'd be against any form of Government mandated market distortion that would mean that a solar farm in Lincolnshire makes any sort of financial sense - Green levies etc.
What if a solar farm in Lincolnshire makes perfect sense purely due to the free market price in energy?
As for the second point, yes I am, but to be fair I'm also against DEFRA paying farmers to be in the industry too, which is what that scheme is about. Its only eligible for those getting "BPS payments" which are again hardly the free market in operation, is it?
Abolish most DEFRA interference in agriculture, abolish all tariffs, abolish all subsidies and let farmers sink or swim on their own merits. If they need to improve their productivity in order to survive, rather than rely upon taxpayers funds coming their way, then we can be more self-reliable on food even with less land dedicated to agriculture.
There's a certain irony that those who scream loudest about "food security" when it furthers their agenda are also opposed to more intensive farming methods.
EDIT: PS since "Green" subsidies to solar were abolished about a decade ago, what on earth makes you think that a solar development today is being done due to green levies? As opposed to the high market price of energy and the low costs of developing solar making it a profitable proposition in its own right?
OT. Plans have been submitted to Lincs County Council to put three solar farms in North Lincolnshire covering 10,000 acres of farmland. It does seem a hell of a lot of farmland to take out of production.
It is apparently 0.3% of the total farmed area in the East Midlands (from back-of-the-envelope math), so maybe? On the other hand: is this good productive farmland, or low-quality lousy farmland? And we do seem to currently be rather badly short of energy and not so obviously short of food -- plus it's a lot easier to import wheat and potatoes if we need to than it is energy...
Absolutely!
We get whimpered excuses from those who love the agricultural lobby about how important food security is for our nation, but its the 21st century. Energy security is every bit as important as food security is.
70% of our country is reserved to farmland and we're still not self-sustainable on food, or energy. Maybe reserving all that land to agriculture isn't the wisest idea, and maybe less of the land but being more intensive and productive might end up generating more food rather than less.
This shouldn't really need pointing out in a forum populated by adults capable of basic reasoning, but there's never a shortage of something until major sources of supply leave the market; that has happened with energy, hence we now have a crisis, and it is also happening with food. This isn't some brainfart by someone at DEFRA, it's happening globally - notably in places like Holland that supply a vast amount of Europe's food, where there have been huge protests about it. Liz Truss has noted her disapproval for solar panels replacing food production, and she's also put in place a new Agriculture Secretary, so let's hope she proves as good as her word.
The UK has 70% of land dedicated to agriculture yet imports 46% of its food consumed.
Now if you want the UK to be self-reliable on agriculture you need to increase agriculture to 130% of land use, or you need to improve the productivity and intensity of UK agriculture.
If you want the UK to be self-assured and self-reliable on all the essentials then energy in the 21st century is every bit as essential as agriculture.
So how exactly does scrapping vast tracts of farm land improve that situation?
And energy, whilst important, is clearly not as essential to human life as food - life would be unpleasant without the former, but impossible without the latter.
I actually agree that we should look at ways to improve both the quality and yield of our agricultural output, but pulling it up in favour of rubbish solar schemes (in flipping Lincolnshire I ask you), or half baked 'rewilding' takes us further away from where we need to be. It is driven by an international effort whose adherents believe that humanity should cease to thrive, and go in to economical decline. I reject that utterly, and as a believer in the power of the market economy, I would expect you to reject it too.
If the vast tracts of so called "farm land" are inefficient and not generating food, then getting rid of them is no real loss.
Agriculture can be far more intensive in much of the world than in this nation, if all your argument is, is in favour of self-reliability then I would suggest as a rule of thumb that every 1% of land ought to be able to provide enough output to feed 2% of population. Do that and 50% of the land being agriculture leaves us self-reliable, with a further 20% of land to allow us to be self-reliable on other issues like energy, manufacturing etc
If you oppose more intensivity, then you're not really interested in self-reliability and its just an excuse.
EDIT: As a believer in a market economy I believe it ought to be up to the land owner to determine what to do with their land. If the land owner thinks their land would be more productive as a solar farm than any other type of farm, then that is their choice, and I respect that, its not mine or yours to make.
If you're such a believer in the free market, you'd be against any form of Government mandated market distortion that would mean that a solar farm in Lincolnshire makes any sort of financial sense - Green levies etc.
Yes I am, but to be fair I'm also against DEFRA paying farmers to be in the industry too, which is what that scheme is about. Its only eligible for those getting "BPS payments" which are again hardly the free market in operation, is it?
Abolish most DEFRA interference in agriculture, abolish all tariffs, abolish all subsidies and let farmers sink or swim on their own merits. If they need to improve their productivity in order to survive, rather than rely upon taxpayers funds coming their way, then we can be more self-reliable on food even with less land dedicated to agriculture.
There's a certain irony that those who scream loudest about "food security" when it furthers their agenda are also opposed to more intensive farming methods.
I am not opposed in principle to intensive farming methods, providing animals are treated humanely, but I am interested in the food that we eat containing the nutrients that we need.
Food is very simple. We cannot absorb nutrients directly from the earth or the sun (at least not very easily), so we absorb them from plants, or more absorbable still from animals or their eggs/milk. It is in our interests to ensure that the food we consume has sufficient quantities of these nutrients to keep us healthy.
Can this be left entirely to the market? Dunno. I'm open to a market solution, and yes, some consumers are getting very informed, but it's not like light bulbs. If a light bulb maker is selling light bulbs that don't light up, the market will soon sort that out. But you can sell a lot of great tasting food that's not actually nourishing people before that catches up with you.
OT. Plans have been submitted to Lincs County Council to put three solar farms in North Lincolnshire covering 10,000 acres of farmland. It does seem a hell of a lot of farmland to take out of production.
It is apparently 0.3% of the total farmed area in the East Midlands (from back-of-the-envelope math), so maybe? On the other hand: is this good productive farmland, or low-quality lousy farmland? And we do seem to currently be rather badly short of energy and not so obviously short of food -- plus it's a lot easier to import wheat and potatoes if we need to than it is energy...
Absolutely!
We get whimpered excuses from those who love the agricultural lobby about how important food security is for our nation, but its the 21st century. Energy security is every bit as important as food security is.
70% of our country is reserved to farmland and we're still not self-sustainable on food, or energy. Maybe reserving all that land to agriculture isn't the wisest idea, and maybe less of the land but being more intensive and productive might end up generating more food rather than less.
This shouldn't really need pointing out in a forum populated by adults capable of basic reasoning, but there's never a shortage of something until major sources of supply leave the market; that has happened with energy, hence we now have a crisis, and it is also happening with food. This isn't some brainfart by someone at DEFRA, it's happening globally - notably in places like Holland that supply a vast amount of Europe's food, where there have been huge protests about it. Liz Truss has noted her disapproval for solar panels replacing food production, and she's also put in place a new Agriculture Secretary, so let's hope she proves as good as her word.
The UK has 70% of land dedicated to agriculture yet imports 46% of its food consumed.
Now if you want the UK to be self-reliable on agriculture you need to increase agriculture to 130% of land use, or you need to improve the productivity and intensity of UK agriculture.
If you want the UK to be self-assured and self-reliable on all the essentials then energy in the 21st century is every bit as essential as agriculture.
So how exactly does scrapping vast tracts of farm land improve that situation?
And energy, whilst important, is clearly not as essential to human life as food - life would be unpleasant without the former, but impossible without the latter.
I actually agree that we should look at ways to improve both the quality and yield of our agricultural output, but pulling it up in favour of rubbish solar schemes (in flipping Lincolnshire I ask you), or half baked 'rewilding' takes us further away from where we need to be. It is driven by an international effort whose adherents believe that humanity should cease to thrive, and go in to economical decline. I reject that utterly, and as a believer in the power of the market economy, I would expect you to reject it too.
If the vast tracts of so called "farm land" are inefficient and not generating food, then getting rid of them is no real loss.
Agriculture can be far more intensive in much of the world than in this nation, if all your argument is, is in favour of self-reliability then I would suggest as a rule of thumb that every 1% of land ought to be able to provide enough output to feed 2% of population. Do that and 50% of the land being agriculture leaves us self-reliable, with a further 20% of land to allow us to be self-reliable on other issues like energy, manufacturing etc
If you oppose more intensivity, then you're not really interested in self-reliability and its just an excuse.
EDIT: As a believer in a market economy I believe it ought to be up to the land owner to determine what to do with their land. If the land owner thinks their land would be more productive as a solar farm than any other type of farm, then that is their choice, and I respect that, its not mine or yours to make.
If you're such a believer in the free market, you'd be against any form of Government mandated market distortion that would mean that a solar farm in Lincolnshire makes any sort of financial sense - Green levies etc.
What if a solar farm in Lincolnshire makes perfect sense purely due to the free market price in energy?
As for the second point, yes I am, but to be fair I'm also against DEFRA paying farmers to be in the industry too, which is what that scheme is about. Its only eligible for those getting "BPS payments" which are again hardly the free market in operation, is it?
Abolish most DEFRA interference in agriculture, abolish all tariffs, abolish all subsidies and let farmers sink or swim on their own merits. If they need to improve their productivity in order to survive, rather than rely upon taxpayers funds coming their way, then we can be more self-reliable on food even with less land dedicated to agriculture.
There's a certain irony that those who scream loudest about "food security" when it furthers their agenda are also opposed to more intensive farming methods.
EDIT: PS since "Green" subsidies to solar were abolished about a decade ago, what on earth makes you think that a solar development today is being done due to green levies? As opposed to the high market price of energy and the low costs of developing solar making it a profitable proposition in its own right?
Your edit is either ignorant or specious - the whole renewable energy set up in the UK is based on a distorted market (I did not use the word 'subsidy') that pays renewables providers the difference if market prices fall below a certain level:
As it happens, in the current extraordinary circumstances, the flow is going the other way, but that's not usual. And the free market it certainly ain't, not by any stretch of the imagination.
JRM as business secretary. Is she having a laugh at the nation's expense or something?
If we're lucky, yes.
If we're unlucky, this is all for real.
Is there any evidence that Truss does jokes? Remember that she's fundamentally a maths student, and maths jokes don't get better than
Why is six afraid of seven? Because seven eight nine.
What does that mean, she's "fundamentally a maths student"? That her father is a (now emeritus) maths professor? She doesn't seem to be a daddy's girl at all. That she's interested in maths education? Why shouldn't she be?
Because she's repeatedly demonstrated she's bloody awful at it. The new maths GCSE alone, for which she claimed credit, has been such a catastrophe she should have been banned from further public office as a result.
Comments
If you wanted it to stick with the administration the country wanted, then Boris should have stayed, but enough was enough.
Boundary changes it gets Thorpe Hamlet ward from Norwich South (strongly Labour) and about 1000 from Crome ward in Norwich South (Labour held)
Its going red
Maths jokes get a lot better than that.
Q. What's an anagram of Banach-Tarski?
A. Banach-Tarski Banach-Tarski.
Q. Why does the mathematician call his dog Cauchy?
A. Because it leaves a residue at every pole.
For the rest of them, the simplest explanation is Truss saying "We've got two years, so I'll give my mates nice jobs they can dine out on forever. If it goes wrong, we're out for a decade anyway."
He and you are correct imo.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/62813379
It has been a Parliamentary Under Secretary position more often than not, perhaps they will appoint one
Back in 1994/95, I studied mathematical logic with Liz Truss. Just the two of us + the prof. Cantor's infinities. Peano arithmetic. Turing machines. All the good stuff. I wonder if it will help her with the job? Let's hope so.
Nothing wrong with that. I've got A Levels in Maths, FM and Physics, and a degree in a really niche bit of Earth Science which means I'm not trusted with a geological hammer. But people who excel in those subjects see the world in a distinctive way. One where The Big Bang Theory was a documentary.
If you have to sell your soul to have your party in office, then office isn't worth it.
The better parallel is I think what happened to opinion polls in the week between Thatcher resigning and Major being confirmed as her successor. The polls moved not a jot further once the largely unknown Major had been confirmed as her successor. The polling boost to the Conservatives had occured before that, at the point of her resignation and shortly before it. Major was pretty well unknown at that point, other than being viewed as the continuity Thatcher candidate.
If the polls do now move in the Conservatives's direction, it will be down to palpable relief based on the rescue package from the energy price shock, and nothing to do with Truss per se.
This is basically Truss saying she doesn't give a flying fuck about veterans.
Banach-Tarski
Banach-Tarski would be slightly better.She has maths and further maths a levels.
This is feeble. I haven’t had a pay rise for my travel writing from the Knapper’s Gazette for 3 years. So effectively I’m taking a huge pay CUT when you factor into inflation?
But do I go on strike like the bloody barristers? Do I walk out the job like the feeble doctors?
NO I DO NOT
I carry on flying out to sun kissed countries to have delicious free meals, helicopter rides over waterfalls, and complimentary “four hand” Ayurvedic massage from nubile Laotian nymphs
AND I DON’T WHINGE
Sometimes you’ve just got to knuckle down, grit your teeth, and get through the next 5 star spa session, for the good of the country, not yourself
One senses we will learn before long who else Liz Truss gives no flying fucks for.
To me, the NI rise was 100% in the latter category. Voting for that is as anathema for me as voting for someone who made abortion illegal or comparable extremes I'd hate.
Most people in this country will be having a far more difficult time paying their bills than doctors and surgeons will this winter, even with extra government support
American bank will shift work to the City if power outages affect EU's biggest economy”
Has everyone done their blackout plan yet? Mine involves drinking.
*turns off bespoke suite-corner Limelight hydromassage*
When you need low latency you're probably better off with a NoSQL database. It will still be ACID, but it will be faster than SQL.
Fortunately Microsoft can provide you with a NoSQL database on Azure...
We get whimpered excuses from those who love the agricultural lobby about how important food security is for our nation, but its the 21st century. Energy security is every bit as important as food security is.
70% of our country is reserved to farmland and we're still not self-sustainable on food, or energy. Maybe reserving all that land to agriculture isn't the wisest idea, and maybe less of the land but being more intensive and productive might end up generating more food rather than less.
Clearly Mercer was right. They couldn't find anyone better than him to do the job so the only alternative was to scrap it entirely and forget about helping veterans
As a mere Engineer, I could never quite get that to work in reality.
Could somebody with half a clue produce a censored version of PB where all of Leon was censored out?
I’d maybe actually pay for that.
There's a lot of solar panels in North Nottinghamshire (Harworth Estate etc) but not usually on prime agricultural land.
Now if you want the UK to be self-reliable on agriculture you need to increase agriculture to 130% of land use, or you need to improve the productivity and intensity of UK agriculture.
If you want the UK to be self-assured and self-reliable on all the essentials then energy in the 21st century is every bit as essential as agriculture.
Also, unlike the energy crisis, there is a natural equilibrium here that means crisis in the true sense is unlikely -- if food production reduces, food prices go up, and it becomes economically better to farm rather than to put in solar panels, so the conversion of land from agriculture to energy production naturally slows and stops. This isn't a situation like Russian gas where the supply has been artificially choked off. Surely a right-wing free market government would prefer to simply let the market determine whether we cover Lincolnshire in solar panels or turnip fields :-)
And energy, whilst important, is clearly not as essential to human life as food - life would be unpleasant without the former, but impossible without the latter.
I actually agree that we should look at ways to improve both the quality and yield of our agricultural output, but pulling it up in favour of rubbish solar schemes (in flipping Lincolnshire I ask you), or half baked 'rewilding' takes us further away from where we need to be. It is driven by an international effort whose adherents believe that humanity should cease to thrive, and go in to economical decline. I reject that utterly, and as a believer in the power of the market economy, I would expect you to reject it too.
Truss should have a Cabinet that agrees with her agenda. If this were just a personality spat it would be less dramatic, but given Team Sunak disagreed with Team Liz on matters of core policy they should be nowhere near the Cabinet.
Agriculture can be far more intensive in much of the world than in this nation, if all your argument is, is in favour of self-reliability then I would suggest as a rule of thumb that every 1% of land ought to be able to provide enough output to feed 2% of population. Do that and 50% of the land being agriculture leaves us self-reliable, with a further 20% of land to allow us to be self-reliable on other issues like energy, manufacturing etc
If you oppose more intensivity, then you're not really interested in self-reliability and its just an excuse.
EDIT: As a believer in a market economy I believe it ought to be up to the land owner to determine what to do with their land. If the land owner thinks their land would be more productive as a solar farm than any other type of farm, then that is their choice, and I respect that, its not mine or yours to make.
Applications per place for PPE in 2021-22: 8.3.
If she does, then she may deserve re-election. If she doesn't, then she won't. Having a Cabinet that don't even want to deliver what she is trying to deliver, won't help anything.
For example, there's some monster Amazon sheds round here that must be 10ha each.
Why on earth aren't these covered in solar panels?
Firms like Amazon have made a great deal of fuss lately of installing solar where its viable, and it makes business sense where its viable to do so too. So if its not being done, perhaps it isn't viable? Eg as the buildings aren't structurally sound for the added weight of solar panels, or for other reason?
Either way, let Amazon determine what to do with their land, let farmers decide what to do with their own land too.
You would also be against Defra paying farmers off to leave the industry: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/lump-sum-exit-scheme - that's hardly the free market in operation is it?
As for the second point, yes I am, but to be fair I'm also against DEFRA paying farmers to be in the industry too, which is what that scheme is about. Its only eligible for those getting "BPS payments" which are again hardly the free market in operation, is it?
Abolish most DEFRA interference in agriculture, abolish all tariffs, abolish all subsidies and let farmers sink or swim on their own merits. If they need to improve their productivity in order to survive, rather than rely upon taxpayers funds coming their way, then we can be more self-reliable on food even with less land dedicated to agriculture.
There's a certain irony that those who scream loudest about "food security" when it furthers their agenda are also opposed to more intensive farming methods.
EDIT: PS since "Green" subsidies to solar were abolished about a decade ago, what on earth makes you think that a solar development today is being done due to green levies? As opposed to the high market price of energy and the low costs of developing solar making it a profitable proposition in its own right?
It’s Lincolnshire, FFS.
Food is very simple. We cannot absorb nutrients directly from the earth or the sun (at least not very easily), so we absorb them from plants, or more absorbable still from animals or their eggs/milk. It is in our interests to ensure that the food we consume has sufficient quantities of these nutrients to keep us healthy.
Can this be left entirely to the market? Dunno. I'm open to a market solution, and yes, some consumers are getting very informed, but it's not like light bulbs. If a light bulb maker is selling light bulbs that don't light up, the market will soon sort that out. But you can sell a lot of great tasting food that's not actually nourishing people before that catches up with you.
'Once the renewable installation is online, if market prices are below the strike price then generators receive the difference as a payment from the LCCC, which is ultimately passed on to consumers through their power bills'
https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/blogs/electric-power/082621-uk-renewables-power-price-rally
As it happens, in the current extraordinary circumstances, the flow is going the other way, but that's not usual. And the free market it certainly ain't, not by any stretch of the imagination.
New Thread